February 28, 2011

Categories:

The intensity of Republican opposition to last year's health care law knows few bounds, and Mitt Romney's Masschusetts plan has -- wth the help of hte WHite House -- been badly dented by Republican criticism of its similarities with the federal plan.

Mike Huckabee goes after Romneycare with particular vigor in his new book, but a Republican defender of the plan notes to me that some of those attacks seem to lack factual support. The book paints Romneycare broadly as an unpopular, acknowledged failure -- when it remains quite popular in the (liberal) state. And the details seem, at best, painted with a very broad brush.

One particularly unfair attack: “A noble goal, indeed," Huckabee writes of Romney's plan. "But when the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation stepped into the lab…they found that health care, which was 16 percent of the state budget in 1990, had jumped to 35 percent in 2010.”

The problem: Romney's planned was passed in 2006, not 1990. By that time, health care costs had jumped in Massachusetts (as they had around the country), adding up to 32% of the fiscal year 2006 budget -- according to the same organization's 2005 assessment. So the growth has been from 32% to 35%, hardly out of line with the national picture.

Huckabee also argues that Romney's plan drove up costs for individuals while care declined: “If everyone in Massachusetts is paying more, it must mean patients are receiving better care, right? In fact, just the opposite is happening.”

But while the state pays substantially more for health care than does Huckabee's Arkansas (though less than states like Ohio and New Hampshire), premiums are down for people purchasing care in the individual market -- the focus of the reform -- and have, in broad terms, shown increases "similar to the national trend rates," according to a study from the free market-oriented Pioneer Institute last year.

More clearly, the evidence that people see the quality of their health care declining as spending rises seems weak: A 2009 New England Journal of Medicine survey found 85% of state doctors saying health care had either no impact or a positive one. The doctors had other complaints, but a mere 6% said the quality of care had declined. Surveys also show the plan is popular with consumers, and the legislature is hardly rushing to repeal it -- though the state is struggling to contain the cost of health care spending.

Huckleberry's Arkansas should opt out of the federal health program and it federal medicaid payments. ............. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=177&cat=4&rgn=5 . . . Arkansas, Total Medicaid Spending, FY2009: $3,451,516,646. ....................
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=186&cat=4&rgn=5 . . . Federal Funds to Arkansas for Medicaid (2009): $2,625,000,000. ................... http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=89&cat=2&rgn=5 . . . Arkansas, Percent of Adults Who are Overweight or Obese (2009): 63.5% ............. http://calorielab.com/news/2010/06/28/fattest-states-2010/ . . . Fattest States Ranking 2010. Arkansas: 8th fattest State. .............. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-11-17-future-obesity-costs_N.htm . . . A study from Emory University concluded that by 2018, the United States should spend $344 billion on health care costs attributable to obesity alone. The costs of obesity compromise roughly 9 percent of spending; by 2018, it could be as high as 21 percent of spending. ............. http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/19/obesity-fat-costs_cx_mh_0720obesity.html . . . Obese people are at a much higher risk for heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis and some cancers. . . The economic cost of all this extra fat is immense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012005042.html . . . "We have insurance here in Massachusetts. . . I'm not going to be subsidizing for the next three, five years, pick a number, subsidizing what other states (like Arkansas) have failed to do." -US Senator Scott Brown (Massachusetts)

You have a slanted understanding of Romneycare and the Massachusetts healthcare insurance market in general. Or just a slant!
The way you slant the second to last paragraph I can't tell if Pioneer said the focus was on individuals or if you just want the reader to think that that's what Pioneer said. I'll let Pioneer fight that battle with you.
But no one would ever contend that the focus of Romneycare was about the infinitesimally small number of people that used to buy healthcare insurance individually in Mass.: 40,000 covered out of over 6,300,000 back in 2006. We are no longer broken out separately but our premiums are up 50% to 100% since 2006 so whatever your sources are go back and get another slant.
In fact, Deval Patrick shut down the market for insurance sold to individuals last year (as well as for insurance sold to small groups; the two markets were merged in 2006) twice because he was trying to jawbone against out-of-sight premium increases.
You need to get your facts straight and give your readers an apology.

You have a slanted understanding of Romneycare and the Massachusetts healthcare insurance market in general. Or just a slant!
The way you slant the second to last paragraph I can't tell if Pioneer said the focus was on individuals or if you just want the reader to think that that's what Pioneer said. I'll let Pioneer fight that battle with you.
But no one would ever contend that the focus of Romneycare was about the infinitesimally small number of people that used to buy healthcare insurance individually in Mass.: 40,000 covered out of over 6,300,000 back in 2006. We are no longer broken out separately but our premiums are up 50% to 100% since 2006 so whatever your sources are go back and get another slant.
In fact, Deval Patrick shut down the market for insurance sold to individuals last year (as well as for insurance sold to small groups; the two markets were merged in 2006) twice because he was trying to jawbone against out-of-sight premium increases.
You need to get your facts straight and give your readers an apology.

"Huckabee writes of Romney's plan. "But when the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation stepped into the lab…they found that health care, which was 16 percent of the state budget in 1990, had jumped to 35 percent in 2010.”
The problem: Romney's planned was passed in 2006, not 1990." ............ Rev. Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister: Ninth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

Huckabee has a fatal character flaw that disqualifies him from ever being President. Aside from the fact that he lies, he is proving himself to be petty, vindicative and small (not literally, of course).
A President needs to exude grace and class and have an inate ability to 'turn the other cheek' to his critics. The White House offers too many resources that if used improperly could have grave consequences. Mike Huckabee with his non-stop attempts to settle the score with Romney has proven himself to be lacking in the crtical ablitly to not seek revenge.
He is unfit for the Presidency and he is making that painfully obvious. I am a Republican but I would vote for Obama over Reverend Huckabee because the first time a world leader crossed him or said something negative about him, he'd be doing something to get even.

Romneycare is popular with consumers(voters)in Mass and Obama just told all those repub govs that are in such a hurry to repeal Obama care to go ahead have at it ,if you can provide the same coverage for the same cost or less.Remember the repub mantra repeal and replace,now put up or shut up.

Where are the outraged leftists to say that Romneycare is a derogatory term like Obamacare?____________________________
It's not Obamacare that riles us, it's this along with everything else you call our president with the intent of conveying maximum insult and disrespect. Don't dwell on the petty
details, Dan. And wear a bra-your nipples are showing.

I say GOOD for Huckabee for bringing up the Romneycare early on. It is going to come up anyway, might as well get it out there early.
AND Huckabee is right, Romney can NOT get elected, because he is two-faced. He had his own health care just like what we have in the U.S. now, but he came out against the new health care plan.

Posted By: I say GOOD for Huckabee for bringing up the Romneycare early on. It is going to come up anyway, migh | March 01, 2011 at 01:41 PM

I find it highly ironic that it is Romney who is labled too slick, too liberal, a snake charmer, or lacking in honesty. It is Huckabee who has shown a knack for being dishonest, and generaly getting away with it. He is the snake charmer. The most dishonest add of 2008 came from Huckabee. You know, the one he wasn't going to release but then went on to show to all the journalists in the room. everything in that add was partently false. He also falsley claimed to have lowered taxes in his state. It wasn't true. He raised taxes by half a billion. Mitt Romney called him out on it. He then lied about why he had to raise taxes saying it was because of some court order. Huckabee is showing his smooth talking dishonesty again. He has every right to disagree with "Romneycare" but at least be truthfull about it! Also I find the title of his book to be ironic. 'A Simple Government"? It was Huckabee who increased government spending in his state by 600% during his second term in office!